"What it appears to be entirely about (and has since the very start) is anger that women gamers and developers actually exist and are speaking in public."
I actually think that's unfair to the majority of the people in the gamergate movement. I believe what most of them are fighting against is exactly what they claim to be fighting against: SJWs, social justice warriors. I think they're sick of discussions about how the games they love should be judged for how they portray women instead of simply being enjoyed for fun. I think they believe it's silly to critique video games the same way we do television, art, and literature. I think that they believe video games are for light-hearted, often mindless fun, not for social critique.
They're INCREDIBLY WRONG on every count, mind you, but I don't think the majority of gamergaters actively hate women or don't want women in their games industry. They just don't want to have to think about the social context of those games, what those games have to say about all of us playing them, or how the industry functions.
And, as I said earlier, until they can control the violence-threatening, idiot minority in their own ranks, they don't get to set the agenda. The dickheads have set it for them.
"Feminists have been making death threats as well."
Show them to me and I'll happily condemn them as well. However, unless we're talking about threats in the same amount and level of seriousness as SEVERAL female developers and journalists have received, we'll just call that a sad attempt at false equivalency and move on, I think....
I HATE arguments like that. The "the crazies don't represent us", or "the women-haters are a tiny minority of the movement" sounds great, except it's irrelevant as an argument, and here's why.
It's a simple matter of priorities. I know 2 things about GamerGate.
1. A lot of late-comers to the movement have a sincere and vested interest in gaming journalism and their interest in games reporting should is a good thing. They even have some valid criticisms that should be listened to, though there is a TON of misinformation out there.
and
2. Some percentage, I don't care how much, is TRULY harassing women, attacking women and feminists simply for voicing their opinions, and almost certainly committing crimes of harassment and threats of violence in the process.
Now, until we ALL, including the "moderate" gamergaters, get that 2nd issue under control, issue number one is going to be off the table. It won't be addressed, because it's less important and, like it or not, it's spotlight has hijacked whatever legitimate movement you might have once had.
GamerGate is over, and it was killed from the inside. Rename the movement, re-brand it, and launch it again with the legitimate questioning of gaming journalism minus the feverish childish bullshit anti-women antics, and I'll get on board with you. Until then, you're the "moderate religious" who don't blow themselves up but still think apostasy is a crime punishable by death, and you're my enemy.
"More or less irrelevant to this article at that."
Yes, beside a passing comment about some of the heavy talk about gaming journalism, I didn't mention gamergate at all, and this article wasn't in any way about it.
"Wouldn't matter. This "gate" has an eerie pattern to that other infamous "gate" regarding reviews and games, yet game sales aren't down because of it."
Blech, the two have nothing to do with one another. Which is why it's REALLY important we don't keep on just throwing the word "gate" at the end of everything last thing....
I agree. This is the worst post Mike Masnick has ever written. I've never read such garbage before. The person who wrote this post should be slapped in the nuts, and that person is obvs Mike Masnick, AKA "The Maz", AKA Mikey Mix-Tape, AKA David Lowery....
It'll happen the exact moment that Google decides to turn YouTube into a sports' league "broadcasting" partner. The NFL is powerful. Google is powerfuller....
"If the internet has eliminated gatekeepers, it doesn't matter in the slightest what Google does or doesn't allow on youtube, because we no longer need to ask gatekeepers like google for permission to publish; the offensive speech that Geigner supports will simply be published elsewhere on the internet."
And it is. My argument is not, and was not ever, that because YouTube censored the video that it was unavailable at all. My point is that the reality is that YouTube is a major resource for video sharing in this country and it is wrong for YouTube to censor a video that has public value and news value.
You seem to be arguing against an imaginary Timothy Geigner, which is fine. I only request that you make imaginary Timothy Geigner incredibly handsome while you're at it....
"I challenge you to find the video (this is the Internet, so it shouldn't be too hard) and host it on TechDirt. Put your money where your mouth is. Be the beacon of anti-censorship and free speech that Google is failing to be."
I, for one, would have no problem complying with this, and would actually consider it a moral duty to take a stand in that manner. That said, I don't make those kinds of decisions, nor have I even had any internal discussions about it, so I don't mean to imply anyone else here is ducking your challenge.
Your reductionist argument is silly. I'm OF COURSE not saying they should have no content policy, I'm saying that their content policy in this instance is a wrong action. The value of an enemies speech and action and, perhaps more importantly, the value of access to that which will influence public policy, is of course not analogous to pornography.
I believe the original comments are up on the Kickstarter project, so you may find some folks there. Lots of the backlash was on Twitter, though, so you'd have to do some searching to make any kind of comprehensive list....
On the post: Requiring YouTubers To Give Positive Reviews For Access To Games Can't Work As A Long Term Strategy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I actually think that's unfair to the majority of the people in the gamergate movement. I believe what most of them are fighting against is exactly what they claim to be fighting against: SJWs, social justice warriors. I think they're sick of discussions about how the games they love should be judged for how they portray women instead of simply being enjoyed for fun. I think they believe it's silly to critique video games the same way we do television, art, and literature. I think that they believe video games are for light-hearted, often mindless fun, not for social critique.
They're INCREDIBLY WRONG on every count, mind you, but I don't think the majority of gamergaters actively hate women or don't want women in their games industry. They just don't want to have to think about the social context of those games, what those games have to say about all of us playing them, or how the industry functions.
And, as I said earlier, until they can control the violence-threatening, idiot minority in their own ranks, they don't get to set the agenda. The dickheads have set it for them.
On the post: Requiring YouTubers To Give Positive Reviews For Access To Games Can't Work As A Long Term Strategy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Show them to me and I'll happily condemn them as well. However, unless we're talking about threats in the same amount and level of seriousness as SEVERAL female developers and journalists have received, we'll just call that a sad attempt at false equivalency and move on, I think....
On the post: Requiring YouTubers To Give Positive Reviews For Access To Games Can't Work As A Long Term Strategy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's a simple matter of priorities. I know 2 things about GamerGate.
1. A lot of late-comers to the movement have a sincere and vested interest in gaming journalism and their interest in games reporting should is a good thing. They even have some valid criticisms that should be listened to, though there is a TON of misinformation out there.
and
2. Some percentage, I don't care how much, is TRULY harassing women, attacking women and feminists simply for voicing their opinions, and almost certainly committing crimes of harassment and threats of violence in the process.
Now, until we ALL, including the "moderate" gamergaters, get that 2nd issue under control, issue number one is going to be off the table. It won't be addressed, because it's less important and, like it or not, it's spotlight has hijacked whatever legitimate movement you might have once had.
GamerGate is over, and it was killed from the inside. Rename the movement, re-brand it, and launch it again with the legitimate questioning of gaming journalism minus the feverish childish bullshit anti-women antics, and I'll get on board with you. Until then, you're the "moderate religious" who don't blow themselves up but still think apostasy is a crime punishable by death, and you're my enemy.
On the post: Requiring YouTubers To Give Positive Reviews For Access To Games Can't Work As A Long Term Strategy
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, beside a passing comment about some of the heavy talk about gaming journalism, I didn't mention gamergate at all, and this article wasn't in any way about it.
On the post: FBI Director: The Internet Is The Most Dangerous Parking Lot Imagineable
How am I even alive?
On the post: The Hot Duke University Vs. John Wayne Estate Action Has Been Tossed Out By The Court
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Apple's Responds To Tech Mag Showing The Amazing Bending Phone By Freezing Them Out Of Bendy Apple Products
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Apple's Responds To Tech Mag Showing The Amazing Bending Phone By Freezing Them Out Of Bendy Apple Products
Re:
Blech, the two have nothing to do with one another. Which is why it's REALLY important we don't keep on just throwing the word "gate" at the end of everything last thing....
On the post: The Hot Duke University Vs. John Wayne Estate Action Has Been Tossed Out By The Court
Re:
On the post: FCC Votes To End Its Sports Blackout Rule
Re:
On the post: Coke Zero Wins Trademark Dispute With Naturally Zero Water
Re:
On the post: Former Mayor Giuliani To Defend Activision In Odd Noriega Publicity Rights Lawsuit
Re: drinking the Kool Aid
On the post: The Threats Against Emma Watson Were All An Anti-4Chan Campaign
Re: Sometimes, they're all bad.
To what case are you referring?
On the post: NSA Agent Is Oh So Shy About Being Filmed/Questioned In Public
Re:
On the post: How The NSA Enabled Israel Military Intelligence To Politically Persecute Innocent Palestinians
Re: Ironic
On the post: Baltimore Ravens Meet Streisand Effect After Trying To Play 'Hide The Tweet'
Re: Re: Re: drawing the line (in case you're not trolling)
On the post: Forbes Praises YouTube Censoring Steven Sotloff Beheading Video
Re: Re: Re:
And it is. My argument is not, and was not ever, that because YouTube censored the video that it was unavailable at all. My point is that the reality is that YouTube is a major resource for video sharing in this country and it is wrong for YouTube to censor a video that has public value and news value.
You seem to be arguing against an imaginary Timothy Geigner, which is fine. I only request that you make imaginary Timothy Geigner incredibly handsome while you're at it....
On the post: Forbes Praises YouTube Censoring Steven Sotloff Beheading Video
Re: Be The Beacon
I, for one, would have no problem complying with this, and would actually consider it a moral duty to take a stand in that manner. That said, I don't make those kinds of decisions, nor have I even had any internal discussions about it, so I don't mean to imply anyone else here is ducking your challenge.
On the post: Forbes Praises YouTube Censoring Steven Sotloff Beheading Video
Re:
Come up with a better argument.
On the post: Pro Music Artists/Reps Force Shutdown Of Awesome Fan-Music Contest For Video Game
Re:
Next >>